Created and GM'ed by Nopunin10did. A 10 player variant set in Europe and the Mid-East just after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Optional rules available for currying the favor of Nuclear States (nuclear weapons however remain unavailable).

IntroductionThis will be the first-ever playtest of Dissolution, a game set in 1992, just after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The First Gulf War is over, and the first of multiple conflicts in Yugoslavia is just beginning. You'll take on the role of former Warsaw Pact states, former Soviet states, and several influential states of the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia.

In the chaos left in the Soviets' wake, who will rise to prominence? Will your nation become yet another failed state? Will you receive assistance from the international community, or will they thwart your ambitions?

I began brainstorming and discussing this variant on the forum at the start of the year. Inspired by the variants of Baron VonPowell and Charles Feaux de la Croix, I wanted to try my hand at building a DP-variant set in the modern era.

I've been editing my rules and getting some great feedback, and now it's time to start signing players up to try it out.

Because I'm experimenting with a lot of new rules, this playtest will have a semi-defined length and only an approximate 2 month commitment (but could continue onward past that if so desired). Please see the bottom of this post for further details on that aspect of the playtest.

I'm stepping a bit out on a limb with this one, folks. It's the most ambitious I've been with any game design work yet, and I want to give the PD forum community the first crack at it.

Playtest Start

This playtest will likely start with power assignments in mid-to-late March at the earliest, with Spring 1992 orders due no earlier than April 10th. This is in part to let one or both of my other GM duties finish up first.

Players will be selected with preference given to those who have previously expressed interest in playing this variant, as well as players with a record of PBF reliability. However, as this is not guaranteed to be as long a commitment as a normal game, I'm more willing to welcome some relative newcomers to the forum.

Additionally, I have a couple acquaintances from playing PBEM and face-to-face Diplomacy that have expressed interest in playing, so I may end up holding some slots for them.

I will very likely need some Reserves for this game, especially if the game continues past the defined playtest period. I am also willing to maintain an "observers" list that will get notified on every adjudication, so that you can see the game as it progresses.

Regarding Playtest LengthBecause this is a rather experimental variant, and this is the first playtest ever for it, this session will have a "semi-defined" length of 4 game-years. Roughly, that means the game will run through most of 1-2 months. It's only "semi" defined, however, as the game doesn't have to end at that point.

After the 1995 Autumn Orders Phase, I will pause the game to do some evaluation. I will solicit feedback from the players about what they think is working and what's not.

At that point, I will give everyone a choice to keep playing as-is, reboot the game back to the beginning (possibly with adjustments to the rules or map), or stop entirely. You will not be treated as a quitter if you decide that you don't want to commit to the rest of the game.

I am expecting that every player will still treat those first years as if they are the start to a full game, even if they don't actually want to play past that point.

If most players (and the GM) do want to continue the game, I will try to find replacements for the players who would prefer not to. Then, when the game starts back, we will play until completion (victory or draw), with the expectation that players will make an earnest effort to stick with the game as best they can.

If I think the 4-year playtest is a total disaster, I may veto a continuation. Trust me, you don't want a GM who hates the game he's adjudicating. If that occurs, though, I promise to try and reboot the game as soon as is reasonable, giving priority to diligent playtesters for slots in Round 2.

Last edited by NoPunIn10Did on 13 Mar 2017, 19:09, edited 32 times in total.

There are 51 Supply Centers on the map worth a total of 72 Victory Points:

30 SCs are worth 1 VP, each represented as a single dashed circle.

21 SCs are worth 2 VPs, each represented as a pair of concentric dashed circles.

Victory ConditionsTo win, a single player must control SCs worth at least 25 VPs.

That player must also have the highest VP total of any other player, with no ties. If there is a tie for highest total at 25+ VP, the game continues on into the next game-year.

New Units & Combat Adjudication

In addition to the standard Armies and Fleets of Diplomacy, this variant includes:

Neutral units (Minor & Nuclear)

Stationary Units & Sortie Attacks

Invulnerable Units

Disrupting Attacks

Wings

Neutral UnitsUnits not controlled by a specific player are Neutral units. Neutral units belong to Minor Powers and Nuclear Powers.

Minor units show up on the map in various shades of brown and are labeled with a modified version of the UN seal. They occupy neutral Supply Centers that can be captured by players during the course of the game.

Nuclear Power units represent powers with nuclear weapons capability. While most DP-based variants eventually eliminate all neutral units on the map, Nuclear Powers' units will be a component of the entire game.

All Nuclear Powers' units are stationary except for the fleets of the US Navy.

All Wing units are stationary, including those controlled by players.

Stationary units can be given orders just like any other unit. They can be ordered to hold, support, move, or convoy.

However, while stationary units can be ordered to move, they will never actually move. Instead, their moves will always bounce. This is called a Sortie. For example, a stationary unit's move order can be used to cut an adjacent unit's support or protect an adjacent empty province from a potential invader.

Stationary units cannot retreat. If a stationary unit is dislodged, it is always destroyed during the Retreat phase. If a stationary unit's move order bounces in an otherwise uncontested province, that province is not an eligible retreat location during the subsequent Retreat phase.

Because stationary units cannot leave their current locations, they cannot dislodge other units, but they can Disrupt them (see Disrupting Attacks).

Invulnerable Units

Which units are Invulnerable?

All Nuclear Powers' units are invulnerable.

No player units are invulnerable.

Invulnerable units cannot be dislodged. An attack that would normally dislodge an invulnerable unit will instead bounce and Disrupt the targeted invulnerable unit (see Disrupting Attacks).

Disrupting Attacks

If an attack would normally dislodge the targeted unit, but doesn't because...

The attacking unit is Stationary

The defending unit is invulnerable

Both A & B

...then that attack Disrupts the defending unit instead.

A successful Disrupting attack voids ALL of the defending unit's support or convoy orders.

Just as a player's own units cannot dislodge each other, neither may a player's own units disrupt one another (via an attack or support of another unit's attack).

WingsWings (abbreviated as W) are an important feature of Dissolution. They are represented on the map by chevrons that roughly look like the silhouette of a paper airplane. While other variants implement Wings as a roaming mega-unit, Wings in Dissolution represent the defensive and logistical aspects of an air force. They might even be better thought of as air bases rather than the aircraft themselves.

Wings are Stationary units. They are the only stationary units that a player may potentially build.Wings will only ever occupy the land provinces they start in, but they treat all neighboring land and sea provinces as adjacent.Wings ignore split coastlines.Wings can be ordered to convoy an Army across any terrain (as long as the final destination is a land province).Wings can be part of a chained convoy that also includes Fleets.

Additionally, a Wing may treat all other Wings as adjacent for Convoy purposes only. This means that either the final destination of a convoyed Army is another Wing OR that two or more Wings are chained in the same convoy.

Because of the significant increase of convoy options in Dissolution, it is highly recommended that GM's require explicit convoy notation from players (as demonstrated in the examples below).

Example Orders A:This example is a potential set of opening orders from Egypt and Ethiopia that will cause the Army in Cairo to dislodge the neutral Army in Khartoum.

Example Orders B:For this example, assume that Poland has an army in Olsztyn. This is a potential set of orders from Poland, Russia, and India that will cause the Army in Olsztyn to relocate to Gujarat. The convoy is a chain between two Wing units. Note that Russia and India are neutral nuclear powers whose orders are determined by DP allocations.

Example Orders C:This example is a potential set of opening orders from Egypt and United Arab Emirates that will cause the Egyptian Army in Cairo to dislodge the Iranian Wing in Shiraz. Note that UAE is a neutral minor power whose orders are determined by DP allocations.

Example Orders D:For this example, assume that Ukraine has a Fleet in Black Sea and an Army in Sevastapol. The following is a set of orders from Ukraine, NATO, and Israel that will cause the Army in Sevastapol to dislodge the neutral Army in Syria. Note that NATO and Israel are neutral nuclear powers whose orders are determined by DP allocations.

Because Convoys in Diplomacy have often been the source of adjudication headaches, it should be no surprise that Wings open up more possibilities for convoy orders to get even more complicated. This section describes the way to resolve these particular issues.

Criss-Cross Convoy AttacksIf two opposing convoys make dislodging/disrupting attacks against each other's convoying units, a logical conundrum occurs. If both attacks are allowed to complete, then both convoys should have failed (a paradox). In this scenario, the attack of the highest strength should complete (resulting in either a dislodge or a disrupt), and attacks of equal strength should simply bounce. This is intended to model the adjudication of a head-to-head attack.

In the below examples, Egypt and Iran will launch convoyed attacks on one another's Wing units with support from nearby minor units (via DP). Assume all units are in their starting positions.

Given these orders, both attacks occur with strength of 2. Both could hypothetically dislodge the other power's Wing, since each is undefended, yielding a paradox. As such, the attack strengths are compared head-to-head. Since they are equal, they both bounce.

Given these orders, however, Egypt is attacking with a strength of 3. When these are compared head-to-head, Egypt's convoyed army will be the victor, beating both the head-to-head attack strength of Tehran and the defense value of Shiraz.

Given these orders, both attacks occur with strength of 2. However, Iran's Wing in Shiraz has a defense of 2, so the attack from Cairo cannot dislodge/disrupt the opposing convoy. In this case, no head-to-head comparison is necessary. Only Iran's convoy will complete, dislodging the Wing in Aswan.

Other Convoy ParadoxesOther than the Criss-Cross scenario described above, if other adjudication paradoxes occur with convoys, use the Szykman rule to resolve them. The basic Szykman rule converts the attacking convoyed Army's order to Hold, then adjudicates the rest.

If multiple interlocking convoys cause a paradox, use a modified Szykman rule: make a list of all armies whose convoys, if assumed complete, will cause a paradox. Arrange them in alphabetical order by abbreviation. One-by-one, convert the the top paradoxical Army order in the list into a Hold, then readjudicate, until all paradoxes are resolved.

Changes to Adjustments

There are special rules in the Adjustments phase for unit total, build location eligibility and Wing units.

Unit TotalWhile in normal Diplomacy, each player may possess as many units as he or she controls Supply Centers (and disbanding superfluous units accordingly), Dissolution uses a different formula for supported unit count. In Dissolution, a player may have as many units as half of their VP total rounded up.

As such, players starting with 3 or 4 VP start with two (2x) units, and players starting with 5 or 6 VP start with three (3x) units. Since the victory condition is 25 VP, it is unlikely (though not impossible) that any player will ever control more than 12 units.

As one would expect, if a player loses VP in the course of a game-year, they may be forced to disband units. If a player enters the Adjustments phase with 5 units but only 7 VP, they will be forced to disband one of those units.

Build Location Eligibility: Emergent Builds

As is standard in Diplomacy, players can build in eligible SCs that

they control AND

are vacant

In Dissolution, what qualifies as an "eligible" SC, however, uses the rule of Emergent Builds.

With Emergent builds, an SC is eligible as a build location for a player if it meets one of the three following requirements:

The SC is a "Home" Supply Center possessed by the player at the start of the game.

The SC is adjacent to one or more of the player's Home Supply Centers.

The SC is adjacent to any Supply Center that the player has previously built in during any prior Adjustments phase.

This allows for a player's overall eligible build locations to slowly grow during the course of the game without the free-for-all that can occur in a "build anywhere" or "chaos builds" rule.

Building Wing Units

Each player may possess at most one (1x) Wing unit. A player may not build a Wing unit unless they have at least 12 VPs, but a player with fewer than 12 VPs is not forced to disband the Wing unit.

Egypt and Iran are the only players that start with Wing units. If either starting Wing is destroyed, however, the player in question (Egypt or Iran) must accumulate at least 12 VPs before building a Wing again.

Neutral Power Adjustments

In the case that a neutral Minor SC is vacant during an Adjustments phase, that Neutral Minor Power will rebuild an Army there. Neutral minor powers ignore all rules regarding point totals.

Neutral Nuclear Powers skip the Adjustment phase entirely. They will never build or disband anything.

US Navy Occupation

The US Navy is a special Nuclear power whose units are mobile. Because these two fleets can move around, they can potentially occupy 1-2 SCs during the Adjustment phase. If this occurs, the US Navy does not change the control of the occupied SCs. If the occupied SC is neutral, it remains neutral. If the occupied SC is player-controlled, it still belongs to that player.

However, if the US Navy occupies an SC controlled by a player during Adjustments, that player may not count that SC's point value toward their VP total for either victory or unit total purposes. If the occupied SC happens to be an Oil SC, the controlling player may still benefit from the Oil for DP total purposes during their Orders phases (see section on Diplomacy Points below).

Example:Assume that at the start of Adjustments of the first game-year (1992), the Saudi Arabian player still has 2 Armies and only controls their 3 starting SCs: Dammam, Riyadh, and Mecca. However, the US Navy occupies Dammam. If this were the case, the Saudi player's effective VP total has been reduced to 2, and they must disband one of their armies.

Diplomacy Points

Diplomacy Points (DP) are the system by which player determine the orders of Neutral units (both Minor and Nuclear). Each Orders Phase, every player receives an allotment of DP (ranging from 1-5). That DP is use-it-or-lose-it; none can be stored or carried over into the next turn.

Allocating & Adjudicating DPAlong with orders for their own units, players can submit potential orders for one or more neutral units. Each potential order must come with a DP allocation, and the total DP allocated by a player must not exceed their total allotment for that phase. The DP expenditures act like "votes" for that order. Other players may vote for that same order and allocate DP to it. A single player with 3 DP, for instance, can spend all 3 DP on a single order or allocate 1 DP each to three different units' orders.

At the time of adjudication, the GM analyzes all of the submitted DP allocations for a given unit. The order that has the most DP spent is the one that will be given to the unit. If two or more orders tie for DP spent, or if no DP is allocated to that unit, it will be given a default order instead. In nearly all cases (all but the neutral units in Libya, see below), the default order is Hold.

All DP allocations are kept secret (at least until the game terminates). Only the "winning" orders will be know publicly but not which players (if any) allocated DP to those orders.

Keep in mind that there are additional limitations, both to the orders granted via DP and the amount of DP used by players for Nuclear powers' units. Both of these are detailed later in the rules, and there are some per-power specifics to follow.

DP Allocations Example AAssume that all units are in their starting positions. Yugoslavia & Poland are each trying to use Austria's order to assist them in dislodging a neighbor. They each have 2 DP to spend.

Now, the two orders granted to Austria each have an equal DP total of 2. The GM, having secretly counted these allocations and finding a tie, will use "A Aus H" as the order given to Austria for that adjudication. Both attacks will bounce.

Assuming no one else has allocated DP to Croatia, Austria, or the NATO Wing in Ramstein, all three orders will be given to those units. However, by using Ramstein to cut Austria's support and Croatia to support the invasion of Hungary, Yugoslavia achieves his goal while stopping Poland's.

This example highlights that just because a DP allocation might "win" in the voting, the order eventually granted still has to be adjudicated as normal. No amount of votes can guarantee a support won't be cut by some other unit.

If a player controls at least 1 Oil SC, that player is allotted 1 additional DP per Orders Phase. Only 1 DP may be allotted in this manner; controlling multiple Oil SCs conveys no additional benefit (other than potentially preventing other players from controlling Oil SCs).

Because a player may have at most 4 DP from units and 1 DP from Oil, the hypothetical maximum Diplomacy Points a player may be allotted per Orders Phase is 5 DP.

Minimum AllotmentIf a player has no units on the map and controls no Oil SCs, they are still allotted the minimum of 1 DP per Orders Phase.

This also applies to eliminated players whose SCs have all been captured during the course of the game. Eliminated players can no longer win Dissolution or be part of a Draw, but they may continue to participate in the game as Players in Exile.

DP Allocation from Players in ExileUnless a player has been removed from a game by the GM (for conduct, NMR's, or what-have-you), eliminated players have the option to participate during each Orders Phase by allocating 1 DP to a chosen Neutral unit's order. These players act like governments-in-exile and still have some slight influence in the international community, even though their prospects for success are already moot.

No game should ever delay a submission deadline for to wait for Exiled players to allocate DP. No grace periods should ever apply to an Exiled player's DP allocation. Likewise, missing a DP vote for a given Orders phase should not be treated as an NMR for an Exiled player. Exiled players are not to be substituted for or replaced. Their continued participation is optional but not mandatory.

To be clear: Exiled players have still lost the game of Dissolution. They may not propose or vote on Draws; neither may they be included in a Draw. They may still submit press. It is still within the GM's power to strip an Exiled player of their DP allocating privileges should the GM deem it necessary.

Map Geography

This section will describe some of the finer details of the map that may not be immediately apparent.

Passable Provinces Belonging to Nuclear Powers

The following provinces are marked as belonging to Nuclear powers but contain no Stationary units:

East Germany

Istanbul

Crete

Naples (starts with a US Navy Fleet but can potentially be empty after)

Gujarat

Kashmir

Leningrad

Nizhny Novgorod

Astrakhan

Dagestan

These territories are passable by players' units. From a rules standpoint, they are largely identical to other empty provinces.

However, from an aesthetic standpoint, they should never change color to reflect the players who last sent units there (as is typical for many hand-edited maps). Likewise, thematically, entry into these spaces should be seen as an invitation by the applicable Nuclear Power, not as a conquest. At most, they might be treated as a short-lived border incursion (particularly typical of conflicts between Pakistan & India).

Canals

The following provinces act like Canals along the lines of Denmark or Constantinople in classic Diplomacy.

The Unified Deep Water System of European Russia (Wikipedia Article)The provinces of Leningrad, Nizhny Novgorod, and Astrakhan contain a system of canals, rivers, and lakes that allow for passage of large ships. As such, they are passable by both Army & Fleet units (forbidden only to the US Navy, see later section below).

Nizhny Novgorod is intended as a potential "choke" point: Fleets occupying Nizhny Novgorod have limited options and may only treat Astrakhan and Leningrad as adjacent.

Fleets occupying one of these three Deep Water System territories may not convoy Armies.

Bosphorus Straits (Istanbul)The province of Istanbul connects the Black Sea and Aegean Sea. It includes the Bosphorus Straits and the Sea of Marmara.

Even though Istanbul breaks the Izmir coastline, the NATO Fleet in Izmir is allowed to treat the entire region as if it had a unified coastline.

A Fleet occupying Istanbul may not convoy an Army.

Suez Canal & Gulf of Aqaba (Sinai)The province of Sinai includes the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba. This should be considered a Hybrid land/sea province (similar to Gibraltar from 1900 or Ireland in 1812 Overture).

Sinai connects the Levantine Sea with the Red Sea. It is additionally adjacent to Alexandria, Cairo, Aswan, Israel, Jordan, and Tabuk.

Jordan has a very tiny coastline on the Gulf of Aqaba (as does Israel). As such, Jordan is considered a coastal province and shares a coastline with Israel and Tabuk.

A Fleet occupying Sinai may convoy an Army through it.

Fleets may not pass between Sinai and Cairo. Neither may an army be convoyed by a Sinai Fleet in Sinai directly to or from Cairo. Cairo is an inland province.

Mandeb Strait (Djibouti)The province of Djibouti is also a Hybrid land/sea province. It connects Red Sea, Eritrea, Somaliland, Gulf of Aden, and Yemen.

A Fleet occupying Djibouti may convoy an Army through it.

While Dire Dawa borders Djibouti, Dire Dawa is still an inland province (similar to the Cairo/Sinai relationship). A Fleet in Djibouti may neither move to Dire Dawa nor convoy an Army directly to/from there.

Crossings & Mutually Adjacent Intersections

The following are 4-way intersections and crossings where the regions listed have mutual adjacency. These intersections and crossings are marked with 1-2 small black lines.

Water spaces should only still be considered adjacent by Fleet and Wing units.

Inland land spaces should be considered adjacent by Armies and Wing units.

Coastal, Canal, and Hybrid spaces should be considered adjacent by Fleets, Armies, and Wings.

Please note that even though Olsztyn also has a very slim coastline, Gdansk and Kaliningrad are not adjacent (as shown in some earlier drafts). This is to prevent any power from starting with an Army immediately adjacent to a Nuclear Wing.

Split Coastlines

There aren't any split coastlines in Dissolution.

Some provinces like Aviano, Israel, Incirlik, and Izmir appear to have split coasts. However, they should be treated as if they have unified coasts instead.

Islands

While several islands appear on the map, Crete is the only island actually in play.

Player Powers

Below is a table of the 10 player powers, their starting units, and their Home Supply Center VP values.

Neutral units, whether Nuclear or Minor, have some "quirks" to their behavior. Because they aren't directly controlled by a single human player, there are some limitations and alterations to what orders they can carry out (and likewise, who can give them those orders via DP).

Some of these rules vary from power-to-power, as you will read below.

Default Orders for Libyan Neutral ArmiesLibya is a minor Neutral power with two units. Instead of defaulting to Hold each turn, their default disposition is to support one another to hold.

Specifically, if Minor Neutral armies for both Benghazi & Tripoli are on the map at start of the Orders phase, then their default orders are:

If Benghazi is vacant or occupied by another power, the Libyan Army in Tripoli will default to a Hold order instead (and vice versa).

Limitations on DP Orders for Neutral & Nuclear Powers

Because a neutral unit has no way of detecting whether they are being "lied" to, some limits are in place to mitigate neutral units' built-in gullibility.

There are 4 categories of limitations that may apply. Not every category applies to every neutral unit or power.

Categories of Limitations

X Cannot Attack Y

This limitation means that a unit of X power cannot be ordered to attack, support an attack, or convoy an attack on a unit of Y power.

In most cases, X and Y are the same power.

No Individual DP Deception (all except US Navy)

This limitation means that a unit cannot be allocated DP by a player power during the same turn that player is attacking, supporting an attack, or convoying an attack on that unit.

No Collective DP Deception

This means that a unit cannot be granted DP by a player power during the same turn that player is attacking, supporting an attack on, or convoying an attack on any unit belonging to that neutral power.

No Self-Disrupt (US Navy only)

This means that even though a US Navy unit may be ordered to attack or support an attack on the other US Navy unit, the support or attack may be voided if it would cause the targeted unit to be disrupt.

This rule is intended to be similar to the standard rule from Diplomacy that prevents a player from Dislodging their own unit.

X Cannot Disrupt/Dislodge Protected Player(Option B only)

This limitation only applies if using Option B from the Optional Rules section.

This means that Player Powers that have 5 Favor with Nuclear Power X on its Favor Tracker at the beginning of the Orders Phase are treated as Protected allies of X power.

Units belonging to the Protected player may not be dislodged or disrupted by X power.

A unit of X power may be ordered to attack or support an attack on the Protected Player's unit. However, the support or attack will be voided if it would cause the targeted unit to be disrupted or dislodged.

The following lists lay out which of the above categories apply to which Nuclear and Minor powers.

Nuclear Power Limitations by Power

India

India Cannot Attack India

No Individual DP Deception

No Collective DP Deception

India Cannot Disrupt/Dislodge Protected Player (Option B only)

Israel

No Individual DP Deception

Israel Cannot Disrupt/Dislodge Protected Player (Option B only)

NATO

NATO Cannot Attack NATO

No Individual DP Deception

No Collective DP Deception

NATO Cannot Disrupt/Dislodge Protected Player (Option B only)

Russia

Russia Cannot Attack Russia

No Individual DP Deception

No Collective DP Deception

Russia Cannot Disrupt/Dislodge Protected Player (Option B only)

United States Navy

US Navy Cannot Attack NATO

US Navy Cannot Attack Israel

No Self-Disrupt

US Navy Cannot Disrupt/Dislodge Protected Player (Option B only)

Also: The US Navy cannot be given a move order to Astrakhan, preventing those fleets from entering the Russian Unified Deep Water System.

Minor Power Limitations by Power

Libya (Benghazi & Tripoli)

Libya Cannot Attack Libya

No Individual DP Deception

No Collective DP Deception

Afghanistan

No Individual DP Deception

Afghanistan was in the middle of a civil war in the 1990's, so it is not to be treated as a unified power.

Treat Kabul and Kandahar as separate and independent minor units.

Czechoslovakia & Sudan

No Individual DP Deception

These powers are broken up into 2-3 provinces, but this has no impact on game rules.

Works CitedTBD: I am making a list of all the media sources I used to build this variant's map and its units. The vast majority are Public Domain, and the others are Creative Commons (or an equivalent license). I should have posted this earlier, since I like to properly give credit where credit is due, but it got a bit lost in the mix.

Last edited by NoPunIn10Did on 28 Feb 2017, 19:35, edited 15 times in total.

The following two sections describe two methods for how to determine the maximum DP any single player may allocate to a Nuclear Power during a single Orders phase. Note that this maximum is not per-unit, but across all units belonging to the Nuclear Power in question.

Additionally, this maximum assumes that all DP spent are still within the player's total allotment of DP for the Orders Phase. Having a higher max-per-Nuclear than their allotment total doesn't grant the player additional DP.

Before a game officially begins, the GM must determine and announce which Option is to be used (For this playtest, players will vote on it before powers are assigned). Option A is much more straightforward for both the GM and players. Option B is much more complicated, but it provides the opportunity to simulate Diplomatic relations with the non-player-controlled powers in a fashion better suited to the historical context.

Option A: Simple Maximum DP for Nuclear Power

A player may allocate a maximum of 2 DP to any Nuclear Power (across all that Nuclear Power's units) per Orders phase.

Option B: Nuclear Power Favor Tracker

Using Option B, Nuclear Powers have their own particular "personalities" in Dissolution. Each surviving Player's reputation with these Nuclear Powers is represented using the Favor Tracker. The Favor Tracker shows the maximum number of DP per Orders Phase that a power may spend on orders for a given Nuclear Power's units. Players can go up and down the Favor Tracker based on their actions during the course of the game.

The Favor Tracker is a grid broken into 5 columns and 6 rows. Each column represents the Favor of a specific Nuclear Power. Each row represents a different level of Favor, with the two bottom levels representing Disfavor.

The levels of Favor and Disfavor are as follows (from top to bottom):

5 Favor (Protected)

3 Favor

2 Favor

1 Favor

1 Disfavor

0 Disfavor

The numerical value of each Favor (or Disfavor) level corresponds to the max number of DP that a Player Power (represented by a small Army icon) may allocate to a given Nuclear Power (one per column) during an Orders Phase. No player may ever go higher than 5 or lower than 0 in a Favor Tracker column.

5 Favor is "Protected"A player that has 5 Favor with a Nuclear Power is "Protected" by that power. If a player is Protected by a Nuclear Power at the beginning of an Orders Phase, that Nuclear Power may not Disrupt or Dislodge units belonging to that player via attack or support.

(See also the "Special Rules per Neutral Power Regarding DP" section in the main rules.)

Losing FavorAt the end of every Orders phase adjudication, a player's orders for their own units are evaluated to see whether they will lose Favor with a Nuclear power.

A player will move one level down a Nuclear Power's Favor Tracker for each instance of the following:

Instance #1: The player made a Disrupting Attack of the Nuclear Power's unit.

Instance #2: The player Dislodged a unit in a land, canal, or hybrid province that is in or adjacent to the Nuclear Power's territory (their colored land provinces); however, the player will not lose Favor with the Nuclear Power in question if that Nuclear Power provided a support order for the attack or convoyed the attack.

In both instances, only the attacking unit's power moves down the Favor Tracker. Additional supporters or convoyers are ignored.

In Instance #2, whether the Nuclear Power's support order was actually successful is not relevant. If the support is cut or voided, or that Nuclear Power's unit is otherwise Disrupted, then the player who dislodged the adjacent unit will not lose Favor.

Also, a Fleet dislodged in a Water space does not trigger the Favor loss in Instance #2.

Losing Favor with NATO & the US Navy (Special Cases for Instance #2)Though for gameplay purposes, the US Navy is largely to be considered a separate Nuclear Power from NATO, the Favor system treats the US Navy partly as an extension of NATO. Because of this, Instance #2 works a little differently with respect to NATO and the US Navy.

First, a player will not lose favor with NATO if a US Navy Fleet supported or convoyed the dislodging attack.

However, for each time Instance #2 causes the player to lose Favor with NATO, that player will also lose Favor with the US Navy.

Keep in mind that the US Navy has no territory of its own in Dissolution. They can roam the map and occupy different provinces, but they never convert any province or SC into their own territory. This includes their starting locations: Naples is NATO territory, and Kuwait is neutral territory.

Increasing Favor: Engage & AdvocateA player only increases Favor during the Winter Adjustments Phase. Players increase their Favor level differently based on whether the Nuclear Powers hold them in Favor or Disfavor.

These optional increases are submitted as orders along with any required Build or Disband orders for that power.

Engage (Favor for Self)Each Winter, each player may Engage with up to two (2x) Nuclear Powers that currently Favor that player's power. That is to say, the player can move one level up within the top four squares of each of two columns.

Advocate (Favor for Other)Additionally, a player may choose to Advocate on a fellow player's behalf. The Advocating player chooses one Nuclear Power where they are currently in Favor but their fellow player is in Disfavor. When Winter Adjustments are revealed, the Disfavored opponent will move up one level on the Favor track for that Nuclear Power.

Multiple players may Advocate for the same pairing of Disfavored player and Nuclear power, but the Disfavored player in question cannot be moved higher than the lowest Favor row (1) in this manner. Once back in Favor, it is that player's responsibility to Engage with the Nuclear power in future Winter Adjustments phases.

Delayed Restoration of Protected StatusIf a player starts a game-year at 5 Favor with a Nuclear Power, but then drops exactly one level to 3 Favor by the end of Fall, that player may not Engage back to 5 Favor with that Nuclear Power this Winter. This prevents the player from immediately restoring Protected status while still angering the Nuclear Power.

Assuming that player does nothing further to lose that power's Favor in the following Spring or Fall, they are allowed to Engage back to 5 Favor in the next Winter.

Practical Example:At the end of 1992, assume Poland is in Russia's Favor and Israel's Favor (both at 1 Favor). Assume Iran is in Israel's Disfavor, at 0 Disfavor. Poland submits these orders in addition to its builds:

Assuming no one else is Advocating for Iran & Israel, then Iran will move up 1 level in Israel's column, from 0 Disfavor to 1 Disfavor. Poland will move to 2 Favor for Russia and 2 Favor for Israel.

Now if one or more other players also submit an "Advocate Iran - Israel" order (or "Advocate Israel - Iran", same thing), then Iran will move 2 levels up the Favor Tracker, landing in 1 Favor for Israel instead (but no higher that turn).

Favor and Bonus VP (Omitted)Edit: An earlier copy of these rules stated that you can accumulate additional VP by achieving 5 Favor for one or more Nuclear Powers. This section has been intentionally removed.

Starting FavorThe following chart details the initial setup of the Favor Tracker for each player/Nuclear pairing.

No Favor for ExilesPlayers in Exile no longer interact with the Favor Tracker. They do not Engage during Winter Adjustments, and they may not Advocate. They are allowed to spend their 1 DP per Orders Phase on any neutral power's order regardless of their position on the Favor Tracker prior to being eliminated.

Last edited by NoPunIn10Did on 06 May 2017, 02:50, edited 18 times in total.

House RulesOrder Submission Schedule (Non-Standard)I will run a three-season rotation for orders submission: Spring, Fall, and Winter, with two seasons executed per week and retreats handled ad-hoc. Assuming no delays, this works out to 3 weeks for every 2 game-years.

This schedule does not run on a standard days-per-phase model (e.g. 2/1/1 or 3/1/2). I find that adjudication is quicker, and NMR's fewer, when players are given a regular weekly schedule instead.

All seasonal orders (movement and builds) will be due on Mondays and Thursdays by 7:00 PM (19:00) New York Time, which is EDT (UTC-4) or EST (UTC-5), depending on the time of the year. I will try to send out reminders on the morning-of, but those are not guaranteed. If you live in a time-zone that makes this timing (particularly the reminders) inconvenient, please let me know ASAP, and we can work something out.

Reminders for seasonal orders are not guaranteed, and they may be less than 24 hours.

If everyone gets their orders in early, I can adjudicate much more promptly. However, I will not adjudicate movement or build turns earlier than the due date/time.

All retreat orders are due within 24 hours of the adjudication report. If you happen to miss a retreat order, I do not always automatically disband those units. See the section below on missed retreats.

Unlike seasonal orders, I will report retreats as soon as I receive all of them for a given turn.

Reminders for retreat orders will not be given.

ExtensionsI can and do grant extensions at my own discretion. Please try to ask me about them as soon as possible. Saying you need one 5 minutes before the orders-due time is really frustrating to everyone.

At my discretion, if I grant an extension, I may amend the schedule for subsequent due dates. My goal will be to ensure any seasonal due date/time occurs at least 48 hours after the last season's adjudication and at least 24 hours after retreats are reported.

Additionally, I may institute a delay or extension to compensate for changes in my own schedule.

Depending on the length of any given delay, I will either:

Push the due time back a few hours (e.g. same day, but 2300 ET instead of 1900 ET).

Skip one due date altogether, moving the schedule back to the following date (e.g. Monday's Spring Orders now due Thursday, Thursday's Autumn orders now due the following Monday, et cetera)

Propose two or more alternate schedules to be voted on by the group. If unanimous support cannot be established, I will default to the most lenient option.

Sample ScheduleAssuming no major delays, this could be a typical schedule.

Grace Periods (Not in Effect at Game Start)Grace periods are not automatically in effect at the beginning of a game. I will sometimes be forgiving to a person that's within an hour of the deadline for an early turn (since first-year NMR's are a pain for everyone, including the GM), but that's totally up to my own discretion.

Grace Period DetailsIf I announce a standing 12-hour grace period policy for all seasonal orders (never retreats), here's how it works. The due date/time does not change: it's still 1900 New York Time (EST/EDT) on Mondays & Thursdays.

However, I will accept missing orders up to 12 hours late. In practical terms, this means that I will never adjudicate any earlier than 1900 EST/EDT, but after that point I will adjudicate as soon as I receive some orders from everyone (within that 12 hour window). I would advise you not to attempt corrections or changes to prior orders within that 12-hour window; while it's not forbidden, it's totally within my discretion to accept them or not (usually depending on whether I've started the adjudication).

Players should not use the 12-hour window to negotiate. Please don't try to game the system by waiting until the absolute last minute of the grace period to send orders. It's meant to provide breathing room to the busy and the tardy, and I don't take kindly to those who seem to be abusing the privilege.

Occasionally I will institute a 24-hour grace period policy, using these same stipulations, but I will do so only on a temporary basis. 24-hour grace periods only last one game-year unless reinstated, and I only institute them when given considerable advance notice of a legitimate time conflict.

Example: one of my former players was an election official and was working late hours prior to a national vote. He gave me a week's notice that he'd be unusually busy, and I instituted the 24-hour policy for the affected game-year to give him some breathing room. As it turned out, I never actually had to use it (which made me quite happy).

Assignment of PowersFor this playtest, I will be assigning powers randomly. For those who care about my procedure for selection, I will put them into an Excel spreadsheet (like the one I use to do blind auction calculations). A series of random numbers will then pair each player to a power. I will close my eyes, press F9 a bunch of times, then open my eyes and copy out the results to something permanent.

Future playtests will use an Auction-based system, but luck-of-the-draw seems like a better option for a first playthrough.

Adjudication MistakesIf I make a mistake in adjudication, please point it out ASAP. The window to do this is until the next season’s orders are due.

This means that you can potentially spot an error from the Spring Movement adjudication after the Spring Retreats have been reported, but not once the Fall Movement has been reached.

Depending on the timing of the correction, I will probably declare an extension for players to revise their orders.

I reserve the right to use my own judgment in applying such corrections.

Missed Orders (NMR)A player that does not submit seasonal orders to me by adjudication will receive an NMR (no moves received) for that phase. If you NMR during a movement phase, all of your units will hold. If you NMR during a retreat or build phase, I will provide orders for you in the manners described below.

Missed RetreatsUnlike the standard Diplomacy policy of disbanding all missed retreats, if you miss providing retreat orders, I will retreat your dislodged units using the following priorities (from highest to lowest):

Retreat to a province with another player’s SC.

Retreat to a province with player’s own SC.

Retreat to a water/hybrid space (fleets only).

Retreat to a land/canal/hybrid space with no SC.

If more than one possible retreat location has the same priority, I will use whichever region’s three-letter code comes first in alphabetical order.

I will give no consideration for whether some other retreating unit (even your own) can retreat to the same space.

Missed Winter OrdersSimilar to normal Diplomacy, if you miss submitting Build orders for a Winter turn, you will forfeit the relevant build(s) that turn. If you don’t submit the required number of Destroy orders, I will destroy units using the following priorities.

Destroy units that are not occupying an SC.

Destroy units that are the furthest from your Home Supply Centers.

Destroy Fleets before Wings, then Wings before Armies.

If units are still equal in priorities 1, 2, & 3, destroy units in alphabetical order, using their regions' three-letter abbreviations.

Repeated Missed Orders & Player Replacement

Because this is a shorter-term commitment, I will have very little patience with NMR's on Orders Phases. I don't punish you if you NMR your retreats, but it's more convenient for everyone if you don't.

If you miss turning in two seasons in a row, or at least three seasons overall, I may replace you. Because retreats are intentionally handled over a shorter period of time, an NMR for a retreat phase is not considered as part of this count.

If you miss turning in seasonal orders during the first Spring turn of the game, you will be ejected immediately, and the game will restart. If you miss turning in movement orders for the first Fall turn of the game, I will pause the game and immediately replace you.

This is entirely at my discretion, and I reserve the right to replace players that I deem to be problematic.

Mistakes and Missing CoastlinesIf you make what appears to be a mistake in your orders, I may contact you to clarify. However, I do this as a courtesy. Any mistakes not caught (or not corrected) by adjudication will stand.

Because this is a playtest, I am going to try to be especially lenient when it comes to mistakes, but ultimately, if I can't figure out what your orders are, or they're just plain illegal, I can't do much about that. While early orders submission is not a guarantee that I will catch your mistakes, an error is far more likely to be caught 1-2 days before adjudication rather than 5 minutes before.

DrawsSince this playtest has a semi-defined length (4 game years), no draws are allowed during that period. However, if the playtest continues after that, the game will be played until victory or draw. For a draw, the following rules apply.

Draws do not have to include all survivors, but approval must be unanimous (with all votes in approval or abstaining).

Draw proposals expire at the beginning of the following season (ignoring retreat phases).

Votes for draws may be sent to me privately, or announced publicly, but I will reveal everyone's vote once all votes are collected (or the draw expires). A private vote always supercedes a public vote, as I'm assume you're trying to lie to your opponents, so if you do change your mind, you'll need to send me another private message.

If you are a substitute or replacement for another player, you are not allowed to vote on their behalf until after the adjudication of at least one season where you were in charge of turning in movement or build orders.

Forced DrawsIn the unlikely event that you end up in a messy stalemate, and you can't get unanimous agreement for a draw, I'll force the game to end in a draw, including all surviving players, if and only if:

Half or more of surviving players vote for it.

No change to the state of the map has occurred for the duration of the past two game-years.

I also reserve the right to forcibly end any game in a draw, even if it does not match these exact stipulations, but as a GM, I hope never to have to invoke that right.

Last edited by NoPunIn10Did on 21 Feb 2017, 03:58, edited 1 time in total.